What's the point in having a slow but reliable car? You will not win anything with it. At least if a car/driver is fast they have the speed to win. It's up to the team to build a car that's quick enough and can hold itself together. As for mechanical sympathy, to be honest, in modern F1 that is all bollocks. Take the alternator and fuel pump failures that afflicted Renault and Mercedes. How can a driver influence that through their driving style!? In the days before re-limiters, semi-auto gearboxes etc the driver could be sympathetic by not stripping the gears with bad clutch management (see what I did there!), not blow the enginby missing gears etc and generally the engines had a much shorter life expectancy so being careful with the motor was worthwhile.
I love the way Lewis's driving is now to blame for the car's failures! Still, no one could accuse Jenson of pushing that car too hard
Hopefully Hamilton will spend this winter improving his "wheel gunner management" that plagued him early in the season I myself suffered from fuel pump management issues about two years ago but after much scraping of knuckles I managed to push through so I'm sure Hamilton can improve in that area to.
(Competitiveness = Driver divided by Speed and Reliabilty) Interesting points above. Firstly, I agree that Hamilton has 'smoothed out' his driving as compared with before. However, it might be more enlightening to first generalise about components and their potential to fail. And only then to reflect upon any differences in driving style. - - -o0o- - - [1] Anti-roll bars are stressed components intimately linked with the suspension in order to reduce lateral roll; i.e. the tendency for the suspension on one side to compress, whilst the other side becomes extended. Any sudden loading of one side of the suspension relative to the other will make correspondingly greater demands upon all components, but especially the anti-roll bar. [2] Electronics are often intimately connected with mechanical parts and can be 'shaken' to such a degree that the chance of failure can be increased. Gearboxes are heavily dependant upon electronics but since they form part of the transmission of power from engine to wheels, are also very much at the mercy of physical forces, which are ultimately controlled and regulated by the driver. 'Slow and reliable' versus 'quick and unreliable': This is the age old compromise all designers face. They have to engineer built-in 'tolerances' to each and every component, based on what is ultimately a 'best-guess' – albeit one very much aided with computerised technology. Clearly this technology itself is subject to the inputs based on what is expected. Thus, tolerances 'evolve' and can never be exact. Indeed, this is why they are called 'tolerances'. For the sake of simplicity, it can be considered that stronger=heavier but also that heavier=slower. One must then calculate another equation to decide the relative values required by 'competitiveness'. Specifically: will we be more competitive over the course of a season with 'heavier and slower' or lighter and quicker'? And if so, just how much of each ingredient should we include to bake our cake? As can be seen, the answer is far from from simple; not least because it depends on other unknowns; for instance: what are one's competitors doing?! Because F1 is the most competitive arena in mechanical design and innovation, it pushes the boundaries of what is known on all fronts more than any other (even including space travel). It is therefore natural that the reliability factor of the equation will always be at risk to the speed factor – unless this competitive element is removed by enforcing common components to all teams. [3] Essentially, the fuel pump sits inside and at the rear of the fuel tank, and is connected to a shaft via a mechanism which can become dislodged (disconnected) when subjected to sudden or repeated loading exceeding the tolerances of its design. A similar argument can be applied to an alternator. [4] Despite the revolutions we have seen with rev-limiters and semi-auto gearboxes etc., we are still talking of the evolution of technology and the fact that this technology is actually an evolution of a 'best-guess' science! Motor racing can never be an exact science. It will always be a battle of compromise. And that goes for both man and machine – both independently and as a unit. And it is this fascinating 'inexactitude' which makes it the very thing it needs to be to maintain a vital interest! Utimately we will form our own opinions based on what we think we know; but perhaps now the value and importance of 'driver input' can be more easily weighed?
I'd expect that if a driver was throwing around a car to the extent that he's shaking parts of the fuel pump free or destroying anti-roll bars that their tyres would give up well in advance to the rest of car... and the rest of the field.
But as I've said Bhaji: it is far from an exact science. Just how much 'shaking' and stressing does one design one's components for? The simplistic argument goes as such: More 'reliable' requires more strength. More strength requires more weight. More weight leads to slower car. And slower car may actually persuade a driver to 'rag' it more! In terms of tyres, their interaction with the track surface necessarily feeds back into the transmission at all times unless experiencing no friction when airborne. However, transmission loadings (stresses) are at their greatest when experiencing 'sudden' jolts, especially when traction is regained following a previous reduction in resistance – such as occurs when a rear wheel becomes airborne (perhaps bouncing over a kerb) and then lands, particularly if it does not land 'straight' in the direction of travel. This extra loading and stressing of tyres feeds back to every component of the transmission, including – ultimately – things like fuel pumps! It should also be remembered that the twisting stresses placed upon half-shafts and prop-shafts is at its most extreme in an F1 car. It should also be clear that the 'grippier' the tyre, the greater will be these stresses upon transmission and all of its components, as well as anything which is susceptible to repeated vibration and/or a general 'knocking about'. And F1 cars have incredibly grippy tyres. A driver who can reduce these loadings, relative to another, should see a corresponding increase in reliability – even if only a small difference.
Sorry... I threw out my last reply while in a bit of a rush so didn't really get to the point. I don't disagree with what you're explaining and it's the same as a road car. Buying a second-hand vehicle that has been driven conservatively is likely to be more reliable and be in better shape that an identical vehicle with comparable mileage that has been thrashed around by your average boy racer. The question is, how much harder on a vehicle has Hamilton been over Button this season? There are times when Hamilton is wringing more out of the vehicle than Button but is that down to him picking up the vehicle and dragging it along or is he getting the car setup better? If he was pushing a lot harder you might expect him to also be burning through tyres significantly quicker, but we have seen times where Button has struggled with tyre wear more than Hamilton... Granted sometimes down to poor setup over thrashing the car. Admittedly Hamilton can have a tendency to attack the kerbs more aggressively though. I see what you're getting at and that Hamilton's driving style may make him somewhat more susceptible to hardware failure but not to the level that we have seen lately... It's terrible form by McLaren.
I agree that McLaren have produced a comedy of errors this season. In the simplest sense, Hamilton's natural style allows him to 'drive around' deficiencies in the chassis more easily, because he uses the tyres to offset the chassis to some extent. This is something Button finds difficult. On the other hand, he can perform pure magic when the chassis is 'just right' (dead neutral). You make an interesting point about tyres Bhaji, but there is something important to bear in mind, which is very easily overlooked: Tyres can often wear more heavily when they are not up to optimum temperature. This is because they are unable to offer optimal grip and therefore there is a tendency to 'scrub'; whereas an optimised tyre grips better and scrubs less. (Scrubbing causes graining and, according to the tyre's compound, sometimes blistering too). Button's biggest 'problem' with tyres has been an inability to get them up to temperature, whilst Hamilton ramps it up very quickly and then has more to play with, getting performance from them at the same time as preserving them.
Going on a a bit of a tangent... When was the last time that McLaren built a car that you could say was constantly (or at least mostly) 'just right'? I'm not confident that McLaren can actually build a car that Button can truly challenge with over the next couple of years.
You may be correct. I suppose only time will tell. And actually, I'd say the last time a McLaren was closest to 'just right' was when Alonso was there in Hamilton's début season! I'm also pretty sure that the Button Hamilton pairing presented some difficulties in design because as I've said above, it's certainly easier to produce a car for similar styles. This may go some way to help explain at least some of their troubles (in the design sense), although it is difficult to excuse pure stupidity or incompetence, both of which have been far too evident! As it was (is?), in my view, Hamilton ended up needing to make the biggest compromise, not least because he was more able to adjust 'towards Button' than vice versa. Perhaps 2013 will not require such a compromise? It is difficult to believe Perez will perform up to the level of Hamilton, but the latter's departure may prove to be a blessing if the new pairing helps focus design philosophy.
Wasn't that McLaren actually a Ferrari though? On the serious subject of reliability, one of the best ways to be fast is to shorten the effective distance - which would imply more "kerb hopping" and hence more/bigger impacts, which as mentioned could definitely effect roll bars, but also potentially anything that is subject to a mechanical failure due to peak load/fatigue. For all the analysis however it could just be good old fashioned, unscientific luck/karma
